Should Vespucci be axed? (vote)

[unmerged(29041)]

In the iberian thread there has been some controversy over if Vespucci should be an explorer or not, but only three people gave their opinion (me included), and I would like to have more opinions before axing him for only two to one votes.

You can read the discussion here (posts 1507-1521), or simply read the summary below, where I attempt to present the info in an unbiased way:

Amerigo (Americo) Vespucci (Vespucio) is somewhat disputed because historians cannot identify all the trips he claim he did. America became named after him as a result of his reports getting into the hands of a map maker, and the confusion of Columbus defending that he had reached the Indias and not a new continent.

He did not depart in any of his trips as the leader, but he did led half of the Ojeda's expedition, and was on command during the first exploration of the coast of Brasil, and during the return trip to Spain.

He was not a fraud as some say today. Spain had very good explorers and sailors, and chose Vespucci as Major Pilot of the Casa de Contratación. The most important post for a sailor. He was also part of the famous four explorers, together with Juan de la Cosa, Vicente Yáñez Pinzón and Juan Díaz de Solís, that shaped the exploration policy of Spain for King Fernando el Católico.

It is true however that his explorative merits are inferior to many, and that is why we are having this discussion.

He is popularly considered as an explorer and that is why he is part of the original vanilla set. We must decide if we want him or not.

Toio and Sturmvogel have already voted in favor of axing him, and I have voted against. I would apreciate it if you could also give your opinion if you have one.

 

[unmerged(51378)]

Definitely keep him.

 

[Norrefeldt]

Remove him.

He doesn't pass the requirements we have set up for explorers and just fame shouldn't keep him in as a leader (he could get an event though, since people will wonder). I had a similar discussion with Tonioz on Russian leaders a few months ago. He told me how damn famous some of them were in Russia, and that they should get in for that. But fame is something given afterwards, and may not come from the historical impact but from political reasons, skillful propaganda, an interesting destiny or shear luck. Vespucci's major impact on history was the fact that he lent his name to America, not from great achievements (that we need to model) and being most worthy for it, but for other reasons. IMO he didn't have the impact on discovery as a expedition leader to have him included. At the most, he could be a minor leader for some years around that 1499-1500 sailing along the coast of Brazil.

EDIT: I'm totally with you on the names; the name should be according to the country served.

 

[kolmy]

Keep Him

 

[unmerged(29041)]

He doesn't pass the requirements we have set up for explorers and just fame shouldn't keep him in as a leader

I agree that fame should not be a criteria, but I think Vespucci is borderline. Not explorative enough to be undisputable, but also strictly speaking he did some exploration.

When Ojeda expedition reached the coast of Venezuela, Ojeda was under instructions to let Vespucci go on his own, so Ojeda went North, and Vespucci went South. Vespucci was therefore on command of the Southbound expedition from then on, and when reached their limit, they returned to Spain on their own. Also exploration is not only seeing, but also telling, and Vespucci was the king of telling.

Anyway he is a unique case. Let the mod decide about him.

 

[Norrefeldt]

Yes, that is an undiputable short trip of exploration, and could give him some 3-5 years of the same low stats we have in 1.42. I change my mind then. Include him

 

[Toio]

In the iberian thread there has been some controversy over if Vespucci should be an explorer or not, but only three people gave their opinion (me included), and I would like to have more opinions before axing him for only two to one votes.

You can read the discussion here (posts 1507-1521), or simply read the summary below, where I attempt to present the info in an unbiased way:

Amerigo (Americo) Vespucci (Vespucio) is somewhat disputed because historians cannot identify all the trips he claim he did. America became named after him as a result of his reports getting into the hands of a map maker, and the confusion of Columbus defending that he had reached the Indias and not a new continent.

He did not depart in any of his trips as the leader, but he did led half of the Ojeda's expedition, and was on command during the first exploration of the coast of Brasil, and during the return trip to Spain.

He was not a fraud as some say today. Spain had very good explorers and sailors, and chose Vespucci as Major Pilot of the Casa de Contratación. The most important post for a sailor. He was also part of the famous four explorers, together with Juan de la Cosa, Vicente Yáñez Pinzón and Juan Díaz de Solís, that shaped the exploration policy of Spain for King Fernando el Católico.

It is true however that his explorative merits are inferior to many, and that is why we are having this discussion.

He is popularly considered as an explorer and that is why he is part of the original vanilla set. We must decide if we want him or not.

Toio and Sturmvogel have already voted in favor of axing him, and I have voted against. I would apreciate it if you could also give your opinion if you have one.

i sincerley like this approach by you Fodoron

and

will support the outcome whatever it may be.

by the way , this does not mean i am voting for his (vespucci) inclusion

 

[De-VILLARS]

i think you should keep him, in leaders.FRA we have the same problem with frontenac (who is a conquistador in the game) but historycally he was governor, we can't supress him because it's the better way to represent his activities.

The presence of vespucci is history, maybe it's unjust but history is often unjust all of us know that america own his name so he deserve to be here.

you can put him bad statistics and à little period of living no ?

 

[NeilJT]

I always thought the idea that the naming of America was after Americo was at the very least highly controversial;

Quoting Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Americas

"The earliest known use of the name America for this particular landmass dates from 1507. It appears on a globe and a large map created by the German cartographer Martin Waldseemüller in Saint-Dié-des-Vosges. An accompanying book, Cosmographiae Introductio, explains that the name was derived from the Latinized version of the explorer Amerigo Vespucci's name, Americus Vespucius, in its feminine form, America, as the other continents all have Latin feminine names.

Vespucci's role in the naming issue, like his exploratory activity, is unclear and most probably a tale. Some sources say that he was unaware of the widespread use of his name to refer to the new landmass. Others hold that he promulgated a story that he had made a secret voyage westward and sighted land in 1491, a year before Columbus. If he did indeed make such claims, they backfired, and only served to prolong the ongoing debate on whether the "Indies" were really a new land, or just an extension of Asia.

However, as Dr. Basil Cottle (Author, Dictionary of Surnames, 1967) points out, new countries or continents are never named after a person's first name, always after their second name. Thus, America should really have become Vespucci Land or Vespuccia if the Italian explorer really gave his name to the continent.

...

A few alternative theories regarding the landmass' naming have been proposed, but none of them has achieved any widespread acceptance.

One alternative, first advanced by Jules Marcou in 1875 and later recounted by novelist Jan Carew, is that the name America derives from the district of Amerrique in Nicaragua. The gold-rich district of Amerrique was purportedly visited by both Vespucci and Columbus, for whom the name became synonymous with gold. According to Marcou, Vespucci later applied the name to the New World, and even changed the spelling of his own name from Alberigo to Amerigo to reflect the importance of the discovery.

Another theory, first proposed by a Bristol antiquary and naturalist, Alfred Hudd, in 1908 was that America is derived from Richard Amerike, a merchant from Bristol, who is believed to have financed John Cabot's voyage of discovery from England to Newfoundland in 1497 as found in some documents from Westminster Abbey a few decades ago. Supposedly, Bristol fishermen had been visiting the coast of North America for at least a century before Columbus' voyage and Waldseemüller's maps are alleged to incorporate information from the early English journeys to North America. The theory holds that a variant of Amerike's name appeared on an early English map (of which however no copies survive) and that this was the true inspiration for Waldseemüller."

 

[motiv-8]

Interesting...

My opinion on this is that since he is a controversial figure and his status in-game is borderline, the deciding factor should be how his inclusion/removal affects game balance. Thoughts?

 

[Bordic]

Maybe a little too OT!

Since I have read somewhere that AI sends out one explorer a time, I would prefer to have one of them axed:

Magellan or Elcano

So for Vespucci, if he is the only explorer in its time span, let him live!

I'd prefer his name to be written in Italian (of course! ) but since there are already Colon and Cabot in the game...

 

[unmerged(40707)]

Keep him with same conclusion as in post #6.

Btw, off-topic but I have the reverse question with Rochambeau included in vanilla but not present in AGCEEP. This question will arise soon in Brithish Isles and France thread with De-Villars currently working on French leaders.

 

[Toio]

Yes, that is an undiputable short trip of exploration, and could give him some 3-5 years of the same low stats we have in 1.42. I change my mind then. Include him

From your previous post in this thread you are not getting confused with vespucci discovery brazil under the POR flag are u?

I assume your change of mind is for a SPA explorer from 1499 to 1500 and not the POR explorer from May 1501 to June 1504??

 

[unmerged(29041)]

Interesting...

My opinion on this is that since he is a controversial figure and his status in-game is borderline, the deciding factor should be how his inclusion/removal affects game balance. Thoughts?

He is a very early explorer. At this time only Columbus is around, but Columbus might be rejected, since he comes by event. For the player it is nice to have two explorers instead of just one.

 

[kolmy]

From your previous post in this thread you are not getting confused with vespucci discovery brazil under the POR flag are u?

I assume your change of mind is for a SPA explorer from 1499 to 1500 and not the POR explorer from May 1501 to June 1504??

Who discovered Brazil was Pedro Álvaro Cabral in 1500 under POR flag, what are you talking about?

 

[Toio]

Who discovered Brazil was Pedro Álvaro Cabral in 1500 under POR flag, what are you talking about?

correct in 1501,(before travelling to south africa and the indian ocean,) but i was referring to vespucci 2 trips for POR between may 1501 and june 1504. I was just trying to find out if norrefeldt thought that vespucci sailed to brazil under SPA, which he did not.

 

[unmerged(29041)]

Who discovered Brazil was Pedro Álvaro Cabral in 1500 under POR flag, what are you talking about?

This is actually incorrect. At least two and probably three Spanish expeditions arrived to the coasts of Brazil before Pedro Álvaro Cabral.

Vicente Yáñez Pinzón departed Spain in December 1499, and anchored at point Mucuripe in the coast of Brazil on January 26, 1500 (first landfall in Brazil on January 20 at 10° South). The expedition of Diego de Lepe departed Spain in early January 1500 and also reached Brazil, with first landfall on February 14 at 4° South.

Historians do not agree on the first one, leaded by Amerigo Vespucci himself, that according to his own accounts, together with Ojeda, they had first landfall in late June 1499 at 4° North (still Brazil) and he continued on his own Southward.

Pedro Álvaro Cabral did not arrived to Brazil until April 24, 1500 (first landfall at 18° South).

EDIT: See for example: here
Also: Frederick J. Pohl, "Amerigo Vespucci, Pilot Major"

In the words of a Brazilian: Errou quem respondeu Pedro Álvares Cabral, a 22 de abril de 1500. Quem descobriu o Brasil foi o capitão espanhol Vicente Yañez Pinzón (ex-comandante da Niña), a 26 de janeiro de 1500, tendo chegado à ponta de Mucuripe, dez quilômetros ao sul da capital do Ceará (sem qualquer relação com o Monte Pascoal ou com Porto Seguro).

A very extensive Brazilian page on the issue, regarding also some undocumented claims.

 

[Semi-Lobster]

i think you should keep him, in leaders.FRA we have the same problem with frontenac (who is a conquistador in the game) but historycally he was governor, we can't supress him because it's the better way to represent his activities.

The presence of vespucci is history, maybe it's unjust but history is often unjust all of us know that america own his name so he deserve to be here.

you can put him bad statistics and à little period of living no ?

I thought we where getting rid of Frontenac?

 

[unmerged(1385)]

I thought we where getting rid of Frontenac?

I am not agree to get rid of Frontenac from the list of the explorers.
Yes, he was governor and never explored himself, but he sent a lot of exploration travels by another minors explorers.
All of them aren't in the game, and I think they don't need to be in as Frontenac represents them well

 

[Semi-Lobster]

I am not agree to get rid of Frontenac from the list of the explorers.
Yes, he was governor and never explored himself, but he sent a lot of exploration travels by another minors explorers.
All of them aren't in the game, and I think they don't need to be in as Frontenac represents them well

Having Frontenac as an explorer is possibly the most bizzare thing I've ever seen, that's like having Tokugawa Ieyasu as an explorer!

Although my list is a bit long I don't think there is any anything wrong with de-VILLARS' list.